Are the poor really the target of Christian missionaries?

I keep hearing from some certain Hindutva section accusing the Christian missionaries of converting the poor tribals in different parts of India and thus fomenting communal disharmony. The argument goes that since the tribal are poor by giving them food, education and health care they become easy hunting ground for Christian missionaries who are funded primarily by Western countries. Once the demography is greatly changed communal harmony is disturbed. And Christian missionaries are, therefore, primarily to be blamed for much of communal violence is tribal areas. This notion is fairly prevalent among many Indians as it does not take so much of first hand experience to confirm its sound reasoning. There is truth in such thinking. But if does not go deeper in studying the matter it'll be unfortunate. One who refuses to see the deeper side of reality will not be helpful in advancing justice and peace in the country. So if one is a lover of justice and peace it is important to peep into the matter little more deeply.

At the heart of theistic religion there is this idea that GOD is just. The Bible talks again and again about justice. The Bible says that since God is just he wants his followers to be just too. To claim to worship God and yet refusing to follow his path of justice is nonsensical. The Bible further says that God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who is the Lord of all. It is through Jesus Christ that the universe and all in it was created and is sustained. God created the earth so that the food items in it will be for all. Due to various reasons distribution of wealth, however, does not reach all-- God's design is thwarted by human greed, disease, laziness etc.

Since Jesus loves even the poor and the naked, and he wants them to be fed and clothed his followers in obedience to their Lord give and serve the needy. Justice requires that the poor and the naked are given importance. For example, if one child is struck by polio and cannot walk, parents cannot ask both the children to walk to school. Parents will either drop or arrange some conveyance for the kid who is physically disable. Justice requires that the two kids cannot be treated equally; only when there is 'bias' will there be justice here. Similarly if God is just it's very reasonable that he gives more attention to the poor and the hungry. And Christians who believe they have a mandate from God to serve operate on this idea of justice.

So far everybody is happy. The annoyance starts as soon as Christians tell the about the One whose justice and love propel them to serve. But is this a righteous indignation? For Christians to serve the poor and to tell who sent them to serve are two sides of the same coin. Service without the message is lame and message without the service is meaningless. To insist that Christians do only one is to insist that a Christian live like a non-Christian. It is an oxymoron.

I have never heard any Christian missionary say to a tribal, "I shall give you rice and clothe if only you become a Christian. If you don't become Christian I shall give you none". I am inclined to believe that this is an invention; not based on facts. But in case such thing is there I do not endorse at all. In fact if any Christian missionary is caught forcing people to convert to Christianity such person is not being a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Christian community in India would not justify such person being arrested. Stories of forced conversion is circulated in so many forums. But such case is never registered in police diary. I believe such stories are lies.

Communal disharmony does not arise just because people follow different religions. Economic injustice is one main reason which generate ethnic or religious clash. If all Christians in India become Muslims through peaceful and loving persuasion why must I want to kill the Muslims! Similary, I don't see why Muslims or Hindus in India should want to kill Christians because Christians peacefully and lovingly have successfully persuaded many to become Christians. Jainism spread to South India because of evangelistic activities by its adherents. Buddhism spread to South East Asia because of conversion activities by Buddhist. Hinduism spread to North East India because its missionaries carry the message. to argue that Indian religions don't convert people is historically untrue. It is through conversion that religions spread. What must concern us is whether a particular religion is using cunning and unlawful means to communicate its religious message.

Modern India was born in 1947-48. Any religion that has come to the inhabitants of this present geographical boundary must be considered originally Indian. I reject the idea that Christianity and Islam are foreign religion. If that is true many North Eastern states are foreign states too. They were never part of India till 1947-48. But if we do support such B grade citizenship status to those states that were not part of India till 1947-48, then even Christianity and Islam cannot be considered foreign religion too.

But coming back to the question of the post I would say that Christian missionary show more concern to the poor because God is 'biased' to the poor because they are weak. This idea is rooted in Christian belief. This missionary enterprise is not because they are easier prey to convert. Such accusation is a cheap shot and thus indicate illiteracy about Christian religion.

Pandita Ramabai (1858-1922)

Ramabai was born as the sixth child to Anant Shastri Dongre and Lakshmibai. Her father earned his living by rendering Vedic recitals in temples, teaching and narrating Puranas in public platform and other similar activities performed by a devout Brahmin. The family lived under severe economic strain. With famine sweeping the region the economic hardship increased. It was in this condition, when Ramabai was just 16, her father passed away. Within few days her mother too passed away under the continued paid of starvation and the emotional trauma of having lost her husband. Even her elder sister died of cholera within a short time leaving behind only her brother and herself, since her other siblings have died in early years. But before her parents died she has mastered Sanskrit under her mother.

For years she led an intellectual nomadic life with her brother. In 1878 when Ramabai was 20 she reached Calcutta with her brother. It was her that Ramabai was honoured with the title 'Pandita' by Calcutta University for her learning in Sanskrit. Tragedy, however, struck her again when her brother Srinivas succumbed to Cholera in 1880. Shortly Pandita Ramabai married her brother's friend Bipen Behari Das, a lawyer from a non-Brahmin (Shudra) background. Worse was to come when her husband died of cholera two years later leaving her with their daughter Manorama.

When she was 25 she travelled to England to study medicine. There got converted to Christianity and got baptised in the Church of England. Three years later she travelled to the US where she spent two years publicising her plan to open a home for high-caste Hindu widows in India.

In 1889, when she was 34, she started a widow's home called Sharada Sadan in Bombay which eventually was shifted to Pune and came to be known as Pandita Ramabai Mukti Mission. She spoke out against gambling, drinking and other social evils that destroy homes. She has acquired a fighting spirit from her parent as she went about encouraging widow's remarriage despite opposition from conservative Brahmin. After all even her father faced social boycott for having insisted on educating his wife when such virtue was considered an anathema. Just as she led an independent life she taught women to be independent and confident. Pandita Ramabai also introduced kindergarten system of education to India for the first time.

In 1882 she started one Arya Mahila Samaj for the cause of women's education. She also wrote two books: Stri Dharma Niti in 1882 and The High Caste Hindu Women in 1887. The former representing a reformist approach to Hindu womenhood and the latter critiquing the deplorable condition of Hindu widows. She went on to suggest, in Lok Stithi, that Hindi should be enriched and developed by incorporating from other language wherever necessary. Her contribution to literature would be incomplete if her work in translating Bible to Marathi from original Hebrew and Greek is not given due recognition.

The way she withstood personal loss, the manner in which she critiqued Hindu religious traditions that legitimized patriarchal oppression and her long quest for the truth which she found in Christ Jesus are some lessons one can learn from her life. In 1989 the Government of India in recognition of her contribution to the advancement of Indian women issued a commemorative stamp.

I want peace in the Land of the Nagas

As Government of India (GOI) engages with National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in a dialogue to solve the six decades long political imbrolio I am hoping that something concrete would emerge out of this meeting. I have seen and heard so many lives being lost in this political fight as Naga freedom fighters waged a battle against Indian Union. So much of resources being diverted towards killing the political opponent instead of being used to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Many Indians are simply illiterate about the history and never bother to read the issue seriously. However, as one whose life is affected in various ways I have oftentimes get frustrated with the GOI and also the Naga freedom fighters.

Present India was formed out of many princely states. Some joined the union voluntarily; others were more or less arm-twisted. A section of Nagas still did not want to join the union, and they have been fighting since then. History is complex and it is not black and white. If one's reading of Nagas' history ends up as "India being all right" or "Nagas being all right" I would say the reading is flawed.

At present I want that India shows more sincerity and seriousness. Dragging the matter and waiting for the present Naga freedom fighters to die will not really solve the problem. If this dragging continues I don't see the problem being solved even for the next 50 years. Unfortunately, India seems to be using this tactic. I also wish that Naga leaders would be more realistic and tone down some of the demands. We are not living in the 1950s or 60s. We have entered 21st century and so political and economic game must be played differently.

Nagas have come a long way. Fighting a giant like India for sixty years say that the matter is complex and serious. If Nagas should tone down its demand India must seize the opportunity. Dragging the matter will only result in more bleeding. For many Naga freedom fighters if "integration of naga areas under Indian union" is not going to be feasible they would prefer to wage a bloody battle even onto next generation. They would argue that they have been fighting for sovereignty for 40-50-60 years and if even "integration" is not possible why on earth have they been fighting for. For India to resist such a "compromise" would be politically insensitive to the wishes and aspiration of the Nagas.

I want to see both parties toning down its stand. I don't want bloodshed anymore. I want to live peacefully. After all isn't my "fathers" fighting so that his children can live peacefully!